In response the latest in vile and disgusting attacks on climate science and scientists, Paleo-Climate expert Mike Mann today served the once-long-ago-useful-now-ridiculous National Review with the letter demanding a retraction and apology. The letter can be viewed below, or on Mike’s Facebook page, where you may choose to spread it around.

Part of the offensive piece, which compares Dr. Mann to sexual predator Jerry Sandusky, is reproduced here.

Hockey games are more interesting when the gloves come off. Maybe some conspiracy theorists will join the green side of the debate from this (instead of looking for Illuminati or Area 51 stuff). The show "Who Killed the Electric Car" got some of those types of people.

There are a lot of people who would love to get Mike Mann in the witness box.

The Lible law in the UK requires the person who made the comment to be able to proove it.

There are a lot of people who want to get Mr Mann to sue them for Lible at which point they will have to try to proove that he is a fraudster. They are confident that they can do this to the point that they are willing to stake all they own on the case (if you lose it generally sends you bankrupt).

There are a lot of people who would love to get Mike Mann in the witness box.

The Lible law in the UK requires the person who made the comment to be able to proove it.

There are a lot of people who want to get Mr Mann to sue them for Lible at which point they will have to try to proove that he is a fraudster. They are confident that they can do this to the point that they are willing to stake all they own on the case (if you lose it generally sends you bankrupt).

It was easy to see that Mann was libeled in the letters post. What isn't easy to see are the "lot of people" who are "confident that they can" prove that he is a "fraudster". Where and who are these people???I have never seen Mann committing any kind of fraud. I have only seen competent scientific work, and that many people do not like the results. They do not like facts, or the logical progression scenarios of CAGW, and certainly do not want to do anything to mitigate AGW, even though it is the wisest thing to do for future generations. So they claim the so-called hockey stick is a fraud. They are the denialists. Also known as the business as usual crowd. Libeling Michael Mann is the least of their crimes.I consider them murderers of future generations of not only humans, but most other species as well. The crime of preventing emissions reduction of sufficient and timely quantity, is the greatest crime ever done by a relatively small group of humans.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

There are a lot of people who would love to get Mike Mann in the witness box.

The Lible law in the UK requires the person who made the comment to be able to proove it.

There are a lot of people who want to get Mr Mann to sue them for Lible at which point they will have to try to proove that he is a fraudster. They are confident that they can do this to the point that they are willing to stake all they own on the case (if you lose it generally sends you bankrupt).

Libel cases are also very expensive on both sides of the claim and there is no guarantee one will recover any of the costs to undertake or defend against such a case. The attorney for both sides are the ones who win in any case.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

So they claim the so-called hockey stick is a fraud. They are the denialists. Also known as the business as usual crowd.

So you have a fair idea who some of them are then.

For a private individual to call the British Government's Metrologhical weater quango(organisation) a bunch of non-scientific fraudsters bent on producing and promoting their new religion rather than doing science is very brave. Since the man who made this attack makes his living from weather prediction in the hope of being put in court having to proove his statement or be made bankrupt he sounds confident to me.

No Tim that's not brave at all, its untrue and their would be no consequences for attacking the met that way if you were so inclined, has some blogger that has acquainted you to this situation? tell us more it sounds fascinating. However insinuating an individual public servant is as good as a pedophile for just doing their job is pretty low and libelous. Why take the time to defend that sort of thing?

So they claim the so-called hockey stick is a fraud. They are the denialists. Also known as the business as usual crowd.

So you have a fair idea who some of them are then.

For a private individual to call the British Government's Metrologhical weater quango(organisation) a bunch of non-scientific fraudsters bent on producing and promoting their new religion rather than doing science is very brave. Since the man who made this attack makes his living from weather prediction in the hope of being put in court having to proove his statement or be made bankrupt he sounds confident to me.

I am sure you have an idea who I am talking about.

From the above posts; The AGW denialists are; Freeh, Simberg, Steyn, Budd, and "Tim the Plumber".The data I have repeated read is that 97% of scientists are on the side of AGW, and only 3% are on the AGW denialist side.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

So they claim the so-called hockey stick is a fraud. They are the denialists. Also known as the business as usual crowd.

So you have a fair idea who some of them are then.

For a private individual to call the British Government's Metrologhical weater quango(organisation) a bunch of non-scientific fraudsters bent on producing and promoting their new religion rather than doing science is very brave. Since the man who made this attack makes his living from weather prediction in the hope of being put in court having to proove his statement or be made bankrupt he sounds confident to me.

I am sure you have an idea who I am talking about.

From the above posts; The AGW denialists are; Freeh, Simberg, Steyn, Budd, and "Tim the Plumber".The data I have repeated read is that 97% of scientists are on the side of AGW, and only 3% are on the AGW denialist side.

Since the poll youare quoting asked "Is human activity responsable for climate warming?" and 97% of the scientists did not respond it's a bit weak. However, I agree that obviously the answer to that question is "yes". The important point is if it's significant or dangerous.

I keep quoting the IPCC which surely represents the "consensus" of the pro-AGW lobby. What am I denying?

So they claim the so-called hockey stick is a fraud. They are the denialists. Also known as the business as usual crowd.

So you have a fair idea who some of them are then.

For a private individual to call the British Government's Metrologhical weater quango(organisation) a bunch of non-scientific fraudsters bent on producing and promoting their new religion rather than doing science is very brave. Since the man who made this attack makes his living from weather prediction in the hope of being put in court having to proove his statement or be made bankrupt he sounds confident to me.

I am sure you have an idea who I am talking about.

From the above posts; The AGW denialists are; Freeh, Simberg, Steyn, Budd, and "Tim the Plumber".The data I have repeated read is that 97% of scientists are on the side of AGW, and only 3% are on the AGW denialist side.

Tim the Plumber wrote:

Since the poll youare quoting asked "Is human activity responsable for climate warming?" and 97% of the scientists did not respond it's a bit weak. However, I agree that obviously the answer to that question is "yes". The important point is if it's significant or dangerous.

I keep quoting the IPCC which surely represents the "consensus" of the pro-AGW lobby. What am I denying?

You assume a poll when other methods gave similiar percentages?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Well there's the one that's always quoted and because you give a figure of 97% I kind of have to assume a poll.

How would you get a percentage without using a poll??????

The point is that of course human activity has increased climatic temperatures. The effect of cities is obvious. However if you asked all the climate scientists you could find "Do you think that human industry will cause significant global warming which will cause significant difficlties to humanity?" then you would find a different result and possibly get a higher than 5% response rate.

Well there's the one that's always quoted and because you give a figure of 97% I kind of have to assume a poll.

There is another method used and published with the same results.

Quote:

How would you get a percentage without using a poll??????

A review of the publications, compiling the authors, conclusions, and any positions claimed not identified in the publications. Those who are experts will publish in the field and those who are not experts will not. The data showed 97% of the authors publishing took a pro-AGWposition.

Quote:

The point is that of course human activity has increased climatic temperatures. The effect of cities is obvious. However if you asked all the climate scientists you could find "Do you think that human industry will cause significant global warming which will cause significant difficlties to humanity?" then you would find a different result and possibly get a higher than 5% response rate.

If you clarify what significant would be rather than leaving the open ended assumption based on the individual you might get a better view. In any case your belief in what might be the result has about as much credibility as your belief that no cities will be flooded with a two foot increase in sea level, or that protecting against a two foot increase in sea level would be inexpensive with no data at all to support them.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

A review of the publications, compiling the authors, conclusions, and any positions claimed not identified in the publications. Those who are experts will publish in the field and those who are not experts will not. The data showed 97% of the authors publishing took a pro-AGWposition.

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

<snip>

In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climatechange) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

A review of the publications, compiling the authors, conclusions, and any positions claimed not identified in the publications. Those who are experts will publish in the field and those who are not experts will not. The data showed 97% of the authors publishing took a pro-AGWposition.